Digital Transformation Through Exploratory and Exploitative Internet of Things Innovations: The Impact of Family Management and Technological Diversification*

This study examines the impact of family management on digital transformation with specific regard to the firm’s development of Internet of Things (IoT) innovations. Drawing on the distinctive characteristics of firms with family managers, such as the focus on family‐centered noneconomic goals, long tenure, emotional ties to existing assets, and rigid mental models, it hypothesizes that increasing family involvement in the top management team is negatively related to the development of IoT innovations that are distant from a firm’s existing technology base (i.e., exploratory IoT innovations) compared to exploitative IoT innovations. Further, the study proposes that the firm’s degree of technological diversification, especially in unrelated forms, reinforces this relationship. The longitudinal analysis between 2002 and 2013 on a sample of publicly traded German firms allows us to test our hypotheses from the beginning of the emergence of the IoT concept. Our findings show that due to the particular characteristics of their managers, family‐managed firms do not welcome the risks related to exploratory IoT innovations, and the benefit of risk diversification from technological diversification is lower than the cost of abandoning family‐centered goals. As our results imply that the involvement of family managers constrains the development of exploratory IoT innovation, the top management team composition in firms that intend to be at the forefront of the digital transformation should be accurately designed by avoiding a high proportion of family members.     

Declared essential patents and average total R&D expenditures per patent family

The sharp increase in SEP declarations and declaring firms emphasizes the necessity for understanding firms’ innovation investment behavior in standardization. This paper empirically investigates whether declared standard-essential patents (SEPs) and the declaring firm’s business model (operationalized as a firm’s location in the value chain) are associated with a firm’s innovation investment behavior. To this end, we measure firms’ innovation investment behavior through average total research and development (R&D) expenditures per filed patent family for publicly listed firms from 1999 to 2018. Our sample mainly includes major SEP family declarants. We rely on a binary business model taxonomy differentiating upstream and downstream firms. Within that setting, total R&D expenditures rise with increasing fragmentation of declared SEP families, suggesting that firms adjust their R&D investments to declaration developments in standard-setting organizations (SSOs). We also show that upstream firms have significantly lower total R&D expenditures than downstream firms, which could indicate structural differences in their intellectual property (IP) and R&D management processes. Our results can help SSOs and regulators better understand firms’ innovation investment behavior.     

The Roles of Knowledge Providers,Knowledge Recipients,and Knowledge Usage in Bridging Structural Holes

Studies have suggested that firms can benefit from bridging two or more otherwise disconnected firms in their ego networks (i.e., structural holes) as a potentially useful source of external knowledge for innovation. However, past research also noted that the relationship between bridging structural holes and firm innovation varies significantly. Building on the earlier research that has examined the industrial, structural, and institutional dimensions of this relationship, the purpose of this research is to study how the different characteristics of the external knowledge provided by bridging structural holes in a focal firm’s ego network might moderate the relationship between bridging structural holes and firm innovation. Using longitudinal data from the U.S. computer industry, this study showed that focal firms that bridged otherwise disconnected firms in their ego networks enjoyed higher levels of innovation. In addition, it showed that this relationship was particularly stronger when the focal firms and the disconnected firms that they bridged operated in similar rather than different markets but when the focal firms and the disconnected firms worked on different rather than similar technological domains. The results also revealed that the relationship was stronger when the focal firms’ knowledge specialization was low rather than high and when the focal firms emphasized incremental rather than breakthrough innovation. These findings show companies how they can benefit from bridging otherwise disconnected firms in their ego networks and help them make more informed decisions pertaining to such bridging activities.     

Operational flexibility and market valuation of earnings

This paper examines the association between the stock returns and accounting earnings of firms that have different levels of operational flexibility. Operational flexibility is a firm’s ability to respond profitably to environmental fluctuations by shifting factors of production within a multinational network of subsidiaries. The geographic breadth and depth of a firm’s multinational network are used as indicators of operational flexibility. We find a significantly greater coefficient relating stock returns and accounting earnings for multinational firms that operate in many countries, but limit their concentration in any one foreign country, than for other multinational firms or domestic firms. This coefficient is significantly smaller for multinational firms whose foreign subsidiaries are highly concentrated in a few countries. When all multinational firms are pooled together, we find their earnings‐returns association does not differ from that of domestic firms. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Technology convergence capability and firm innovation in the manufacturing sector: an approach based on patent network analysis

As a consequence of the convergence between manufacturing technology and the foundation technologies of Industry 4.0, it is becoming more important for firms to formulate an innovation strategy for their technological capabilities. In this context, the present study measures firm‐level technology convergence (TC) capability using patent network analysis. A firm’s TC capabilities are measured using three centrality indices pertaining to a patent network, which is constructed based on the relationship between patents and their international patent classification. For the empirical analysis, panel regression is conducted to observe the effect of TC capabilities on innovation for the top 30 firms in four manufacturing industries. We find that the TC degree positively influences the firms’ overall innovation, namely their total number of patents, and negatively influences their convergent innovation, calculated as the ratio between the number of TC patents and the total number of patents, while the effect of TC betweenness is the opposite. These findings imply that while concentrating on similar technologies may promote quick technology application, it could hamper the enhancement of a TC’s potential. To promote TC, a firm should thus develop technologies more likely to be involved in TC.     

The Moderating Role of Tangibility in Synchronous Innovation in Services

A synchronous pattern of innovation as between technological and management innovation, for example, can help firms improve their performance. This article explores this idea with respect to servitizing companies that introduce service delivery innovation as a means of gaining competitive advantage. It finds that the degree of tangibility, an indicator of the firm’s position on the product–service continuum, affects whether and how managers recognize the need for management innovation when introducing service delivery innovation. Using a socio‐technical perspective in conjunction with insights from managerial cognition, the relationship between management innovation and two central types of service delivery innovation—technological and customer interface—is examined. Tangibility shapes the managerial cognitive structures that are related to the enterprise’s technical and social subsystems in a paradigm that is capable of demonstrating contrasting effects. Technological delivery innovation is related to management innovation in firms with high tangibility. Customer interface delivery innovation, on the other hand, relates to management innovation in firms with low tangibility. This study uses a sample of diverse firms with varying degrees of tangibility to provide support for this theory.     

Effects of entrepreneurial marketing on new ventures' exploitative and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of competitive intensity and firm size

EM is a strategic orientation that draws on seven elements: proactiveness, opportunity-focus, risk-taking orientation, innovation orientation, customer satisfaction orientation, value creation and resource leveraging. These elements reinforce each other in a synergistic manner. We investigate how EM affects a new venture's exploitative and exploratory innovation activities. To identify conditions under which EM is more or less effective, we analyze the relationship between EM and exploitative and exploratory innovation under conditions of high and low environmental competitiveness and high and low levels of firm size. Based on survey data from 146 German new ventures up to ten years old in the B2B sector, our results provide evidence of a significant and positive effect of EM on exploitative and exploratory innovation. We find, further, that under conditions of high competitive intensity, the effects of EM on exploratory innovation strengthen, while low levels of competitive intensity do not affect the relationship between EM and exploratory innovation. Our results also show that for larger firms, the positive effects of EM on exploitative innovation are weaker, while for smaller firms, those effects are stronger.     

Knowing when to leap: Transitioning between exploitative and explorative R&D

A common perspective is that consistent R&D investment facilitates innovation, while volatile spending implies myopic decision making. However, the benefits to exploiting extant competencies eventually erode, so firms must disrupt their R&D function and explore for new competitive advantage. We suggest that high‐performing firms recognize when extant competencies decline and increase exploratory R&D to develop new competencies at the appropriate time. We find that changes in R&D expenditure away from the firm's historic trend, in either direction, are indicative of transitions between exploitative and exploratory R&D and are associated with increased firm performance. Increases in R&D expenditure above the trend are associated with an increased likelihood of highly cited patents, suggesting that firms are making the leap between R&D‐based exploitation and exploration. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How to leverage the impact of R&D on product innovation? The moderating effect of management innovation

Although research and development (R&D) is a key indicator of (technological) innovation, scholars have found mixed results regarding its effect on product innovation and firm performance. In this paper, we claim that variations in R&D effectiveness can be explained by changes in a firm’s social system, in particular in its management innovation. It is still unclear how management innovation influences R&D effectiveness in terms of product innovation. In this study, we address this theoretical and empirical gap in the innovation literature. Our theoretical arguments and findings from a large-scale survey among Dutch firms show that R&D has a decreasingly positive relationship with product innovation, particularly for firms with low levels of management innovation. However, in firms with high levels of management innovation, this relationship becomes more J-shaped, especially in small and medium-sized firms. Our findings also appear to indicate that management innovation may be more important for competitive advantage than just R&D. Overall, our insights reveal that management innovation is a key moderator in explaining firms’ effectiveness in transforming R&D into successful product innovation.     

Application and performance impact of stage–gate systems – the role services in the firm’s business focus

Although service innovation is important, knowledge of new product and service development, including the positive effect of stage‐and‐gate‐type systems, has been derived almost exclusively from studies in the manufacturing sector. In the present paper, we address two important questions: How do differences in the firm’s business focus, which describes whether a firm puts more emphasis on products or services in its business activities, influence the usage of such formal innovation processes? Is stage‐and‐gate‐type systems’ impact on innovation program performance contingent on the firm’s business focus? Unlike previous studies, we not only differentiate service and manufacturing by industry classification codes but also apply a continuous measure to take into account the blurring of boundaries between the manufacturing and service businesses. Based on a comprehensive discussion of service‐specific characteristics and their implications for innovation management and using a cross‐industry, multi‐informant sample of innovation programs from 272 firms with 1,985 informants, we find empirical support for firms with a stronger focus on the service business being less likely to use stage‐and‐gate‐type systems. Furthermore, the use of stage‐and‐gate‐type systems fosters innovation program performance, and this effect becomes stronger as the business focus shifts toward services. This result implies that service‐based firms can benefit from stage‐and‐gate‐type systems to a greater extent than product‐based firms. Our research also demonstrates the gap between the desired level of innovation process formalization and its current usage in practice, especially for firms with a dominating service business.     

Beyond invention: the additive impact of incubation capabilities to firm value

Incubation is a process whereby the firm nurtures breakthrough discoveries and inventions to test their potential as new business platforms. The recent emergence of organizational roles associated with innovation incubation shows that internal incubation is becoming recognized as an important organizational capability. This development also suggests that firms that invest in discovery for competitive advantage recognize a need to leverage that investment more fully. While case studies describe incubation activities and note their importance, empirical research linking this capability to firm performance is limited. The current study represents an initial attempt at exploring the relationship empirically. Our main finding is that financial markets have difficulty valuing a firm's exploratory discovery investments and that the presence of an incubation capability positively moderates the impact of such investments on firm market valuation. The implication of this result is that investments in certain types of R&D may be suboptimized if there is not a parallel investment in a capability to incubate the opportunities that arise from potentially breakthrough inventions.     

Leveraging micro‐ and macro‐structures of embeddedness in alliance networks for exploratory innovation in biotechnology

Researchers agree that alliance networks can be an important instrument in a firm's innovation process, but there is limited empirical evidence on actually how they facilitate the creation of new knowledge for exploratory innovation. The research question is what alliance network configuration is optimal for exploratory innovation. The present study investigated the interaction between a firm's alliance portfolio structure (the micro‐level) and the industry alliance network structure (the macro‐level), and it empirically tested how their interaction may be affecting the exploratory innovation outcome of network participating firms in the biotechnology industry. The paper uses data from exploratory patents filed by 455 dedicated biotechnology firms in 1986–1999 and an overall network comprising 2,933 technological alliances over the same period. The results indicate that, in the case of biotechnology, firms with high exploratory innovation output have short path indirect access to many other firms (micro‐level), and operate in dense industry alliance networks centralized around a few key firms (macro‐level), and that these effects are curvilinear.     

Business model innovation: The effects of exploratory orientation,opportunity recognition,and entrepreneurial bricolage in an emerging economy

Business model innovation takes shape through a process of experimentation. This study holds that exploratory orientation is a key initiating factor of the experimentation process, and opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial bricolage both are actions constituting this process and thereby serve as conduits between exploratory orientation and business model innovation. Based on a survey data of Chinese firms, this study finds the positive relationship between exploratory orientation and business model innovation is mediated by opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial bricolage. The findings not only enrich the discipline’s knowledge on the antecedents of business model innovation but also extend the implications of exploratory orientation, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial bricolage to business model innovation.     

The impact of earnings expectations on corporate downsizing

Research Summary: We propose that due to financial market pressures, managers are forward‐looking in their search and decision processes and focus on meeting performance targets set by the financial community. Using panel data on S&P 100 companies, we find that pressure felt by management to meet the analyst consensus earnings estimate influences the extent of corporate downsizing. Moreover, our results show that high levels of institutional investor stock ownership and CEO power attenuate managers’ sensitivity to financial market pressures, while high levels of analyst coverage increase their sensitivity. Managerial Summary: In this study we examine how financial market pressures influence managers’ downsizing decisions. We argue that investment analysts’ earnings estimates represent important performance targets to which managers aspire. If firms fail to meet analysts’ expectations, the stock price will suffer. This study shows that managers utilize corporate downsizing to address the potential shortfall between a firm's future performance and the analyst consensus earnings estimate. In addition, we find that managers’ concerns over meeting analysts’ earnings estimates are influenced by various contextual factors such as institutional investor stock ownership, CEO power, and high levels of analyst coverage.     

Early supplier integration: the dual role of purchasing in new product development

Interest in early supplier integration in new product development (NPD) has increased as an open innovation approach has become more common in firms. To support supplier integration, the purchasing function of a firm can assume a new ‘dual’ role: contributing to NPD while also managing overall costs. Previous research has offered few insights into how the purchasing function should best be organised so that it will fulfil this dual role. This paper reports on the results of a consortial benchmarking study in which an industry–academic consortium visited and analysed six best‐practice firms. The findings describe how innovative firms organise their purchasing function, distinguishing between ‘advanced sourcing’ and ‘life‐cycle sourcing’ units. The results include the tools that these firms use, such as regular innovation meetings with suppliers and technology roadmaps linking firm strategy, innovation strategy and sourcing strategies. The paper also recommends that researchers shift from a narrow focus on a single project to a broader consideration of supplier and organisational issues in NPD.     

The relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes: exploring the effects of sustainability orientation and firm size

Being sustainability‐oriented has become a key strategy for many firms. Equally, innovation culture and innovation outcomes have long been recognized as important contributors to the growth of firms. However, the literature on sustainability and innovation provides limited understanding of the important relationship between sustainability orientation, innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Given that large firms and small firms differ in building and employing their strategic assets, firm size matters in understanding the relationship. Through the lens of resource‐based view, we develop a theoretical model embedding the four components and test it using data from a global survey: the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Our research contributes to sustainability literature and innovation theory by providing an integrated framework to explicate the mechanism through which the innovation culture of the firm impacts on innovative performance through the sustainability orientation of the firm. The findings advance our understanding of the extent to which sustainable orientation can explain the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Our evidence shows that the innovation culture of a firm facilitates the sustainability orientation of the firm and that the converse also applies. The research also contributes to our knowledge of the differences between large and small firms in leveraging their strategic assets in terms of innovation culture and sustainability orientation to facilitate superior innovation outcomes. Although firm size moderates the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes, the research shows that this no longer holds when sustainability orientation is included in the relationship. A strong sustainability orientation can be a competitive advantage for firms in the R&D Management delivery of superior innovation outcomes.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firms

Research was largely consistent in predicting a negative relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) intensity until Chrisman and Patel, using a behavioral agency model (BAM), called this general assumption into question. They argued that publicly owned family firms typically invest less in R&D than nonfamily‐owned firms. This behavior may however be reversed if economic performance levels are below family aspirations or if family long‐term goals, such as pursuing strong transgenerational family control, are highly valued. While most researchers, like Chrisman and Patel, primarily focused on large listed firms, more research on the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity in privately held small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) is required. This is because firm size can play an important role in understanding the innovation management behavior of firms. Building on the BAM perspective, in the present paper it is argued that Chrisman and Patel's results can be extended to the context of SMEs, albeit with one important specification: the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is likely to be contingent on the way the family has invested its wealth. Specifically, it is contended that in the context of SMEs, where goals are more fluid and mixed, when there is a high overlap between family wealth and firm equity (i.e., most of the family's wealth is invested in the firm) the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is negative because of the family owners' greater desire to protect their socioemotional wealth (SEW). However, if the overlap between the family's total wealth and single firm equity is low (i.e., firm equity is just a small part of the total family wealth), the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is positive as the low overlap between family wealth and firm equity reduces the family's loss aversion propensity. In such a situation, family ownership is likely to foster R&D intensity because of the long‐term orientation of family owners that increases the family firm's propensity to bear the risk of investing in R&D activities. The hypothesis is tested and confirmed in a study of 240 small‐ and medium‐sized firms based in Italy. The paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, adding to the literature on innovation management and R&D intensity, it increases the understanding of what drives or inhibits R&D investments in SMEs when a family is involved in the ownership of the firm. This is particularly important because research on innovation management, as well as research on R&D intensity in family firms, is primarily focused on large firms and much less on SMEs. Second, the study complements arguments from prior research on the correlates of R&D intensity in large listed firms, showing that the BAM and SEW perspective offer a theoretical framework that is also able to illustrate the complex nature of innovation management in the context of SMEs. Third, the study contributes to research on the effects of family ownership on the general functioning of a firm. In particular, it provides new insights into how family ownership may affect R&D intensity.     

The Effect of Family Involvement on Innovation Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Board Social Capital

Innovation is an essential and yet puzzling part of family firms’ strategic focus. While family firms are generally characterized as conservative regarding their research and development (R&D) activities, researchers have recently argued that family firms can still achieve innovation-based competitive advantages. Seeking to understand the link between family influence and the outcomes of innovation, we suggest that it is necessary not only to observe the depth of family involvement, but also to differentiate between technological inventions and market innovations. We further posit that the board members’ social capital constitutes an important contingency for this link. We, therefore, investigate the relationship between family involvement and two different outcomes: the number of the firm’s inventions and the market relevance of innovations. Our analysis of S&P 500 firms comprises 1.85 million patents and manual evaluations of 1774 product announcements. The results of our estimations suggest that family involvement is negatively related to the number of inventions and positively related to the market relevance of innovations. They further show that internal and external board social capital moderate the relationship between family involvement and the number of inventions. This study adds to the discussion about family firm innovation by using socioemotional wealth to explain heterogeneity in innovation patterns and revealing that relational resources derived from board social capital are crucial boundary conditions for families’ influence on technological inventions. Taken together, it works toward a more holistic view of innovation in family-influenced firms.     

Creating incentives for innovation? The relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation performance

Innovation is a critical organizational outcome for its potential to generate competitive advantage. While the contribution of knowledge workers to the generation of innovation is widely recognized, little is known about how organizational incentive mechanisms stimulate or inhibit these workers' behaviors that promote innovation. This study examines the relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation using employee‐level compensation data in US high‐technology firms. The results show that (1) pay dispersion in R&D groups is negatively related to firm innovation and (2) this negative relationship is alleviated in firms with greater financial slack. This study contributes to the innovation literature by illuminating the implications of organizational incentive systems for successful innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.